Abstract
Organizations can use a variety of methods to develop professional learning that improves performance. Formative design can be used effectively as part of research-based design methods to develop learning models that support performance improvement. Developed to serve secondary school educators in the United States, the Learner in Action Model (LAM) incorporates iterative processes and feedback loops that are focused on supporting specific changes in learner behavior. People in organizations that understand their people’s intrinsic needs for learning will gain proficiency, increase the creative application of learning, enhance performance improvement outcomes, and develop ownership of the performance improvement process (Senge, 2006). While developed for adult learners in a K-12 learning environment, The LAM model can be applied and modified to meet the needs of adult learners in various contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform schools. Jossey-Bass.
Aguilar, E. (2020). Coaching for equity: Conversations that change practice. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40214154
ATD, IACET, & Rothwell & Associates. (2015). Skills, challenges, and trends in instructional design [White paper]. ATD Research. https://www.td.org/research/skills-in-instructional-design
Azukas, M. E., & Gaudelli, W. (2020). Formative design as a framework for implementing teacher professional development on design thinking. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41686-020-00042-6
Boller, S., & Fletcher, L. (2020). Design thinking for training and development: Creating learning journeys that get results. Association for Talent Development.
Calongne, C., Stricker, A. G., Truman, B., & Arenas, F. J. (2019). Cognitive apprenticeship for teaching computer science and leadership in virtual worlds. In A. G. Stricker, C. Calongne, B. Truman, & F. J. Arenas (Eds.), Recent advances in applying identity and society awareness to virtual learning (pp. 180–200). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9679-0.CH010
Chardin, M., & Novak, K. (2021). Equity by design: Delivering on the power and promise of UDL. Corwin.
Digital Promise. (2019). The learner variability navigator. https://lvp.digitalpromiseglobal.org
Dong, H. (2021). Adapting during the pandemic: A case study of using the rapid prototyping instructional system design model to create online instructional content. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(3), 102356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102356
Exter, M., & Ashby, I. (2022). Lifelong learning of instructional design and educational technology professionals: A heutagogical approach. TechTrends, 66(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00657-x
Ferreira, B., Silva, W., Oliveira, E., & Conte, T. (2015). Designing personas with empathy map. In Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, SEKE, 2015-January (pp. 501–505). https://doi.org/10.18293/SEKE2015-152
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). E-learning methodologies and good practices (2nd ed.). FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/I2516E
France, P. E. (2020). Reclaiming personalized learning: A pedagogy for restoring equity and humanity in our classrooms. Corwin.
Fritzgerald, A. (2020). Antiracism and universal design for learning: Building expressways to success. CAST.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gawlik-Kobylinska, M. (2018). Reconciling ADDIE and agile instructional design models—Case study. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(3), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.18844/PROSOC.V5I3.3906
Google. (2020a). Google project management [Course]. https://coursera.org
Google. (2020b). Google UX design [Course]. https://coursera.org
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
Herro, D. (2016). An ecological approach to learning with technology: Responding to tensions within the “wow-effect” phenomenon in teaching practices. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(4), 909–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9688-2
Hokanson, B., & Kenny, R. (2020). Creativity and critique as formative processes in design thinking. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41686-020-00047-1
iNACOL. (2016, March 18). What is blended learning? Aurora Institute. https://aurora-institute.org/blog/what-is-blended-learning/
Institute of Design at Stanford. (2015). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf
Interaction Design Foundation. (2014). The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-edliterature
Kadakia, C., & Owens, L. M. D. (2020). Designing for modern learning: Beyond ADDIE and SAM. ATD Press.
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Corwin.
Knight, J., Hoffman, A., Harris, M., & Thomas, S. (2020). The instructional playbook: The missing link for translating research into practice. One Fine Bird Press.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Elsevier.
McDonough, D. (2014). Providing deep learning through active engagement of adult learners in blended courses. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 9–16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1143328
Moore, C. (2017). Map it: The hands-on guide to strategic training design. Montesa Press.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
Nuri-Robins, K. J., Lindsey, D. B., Lindsey, R. B., & Terrell, R. D. (2015). Culturally proficient instruction: A guide for people who teach. Corwin.
Pape, B. (2018). Learner variability is the rule, not the exception. Digital Promise Global. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12265/16
Phillips, J. J., Phillips, P. P., & Nicholas, H. (2018). Measuring the return on investment (ROI) in technology-based learning. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 97–103). Pearson.
Pressman, R. S., & Maxim, B. R. (2015). Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability (2nd ed.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2010.532926
Roblyer, M. D. (2015). Introduction to systematic instructional design for traditional, online, and blended learning environments. Pearson Education.
Schmidt, M., & Huang, R. (2022). Defining learning experience design: Voices from the field of learning design & technology. TechTrends, 66(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11528-021-00656-Y/FIGURES/7
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Penguin Random House.
Serviss, J. (2021, May 13). 4 benefits of an active professional learning community. ISTE Blog. https://www.iste.org/explore/professional-development/4-benefits-active-professional-learning-community
Solomonson, W. L. (2008). Toward fluent instructional design in the context of people. Performance Improvement, 47(7), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20012
Sommerville, I. (2007). Software engineering (8th ed.). Addison Wesley.
Stefaniak, J., & Sentz, J. (2020). The role of needs assessment to validate contextual factors related to user experience design practices. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design & technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux/role_of_needs_assessment
Understood. (n.d.). The difference between Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and traditional education. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-difference-between-universal-design-for-learning-udl-and-traditional-education
Waters, S. (2021, September 13). The power of professional learning communities. Better Up. https://www.betterup.com/blog/professional-learning-communities
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
Weston, C., McAlpine, L., & Bordonaro, T. (1995). A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 29–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30221006
World of Work Project. (2019, February). McClelland’s acquired needs motivation theory. https://worldofwork.io/2019/02/mcclellands-motivation-theory/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fennelly-Atkinson, R., Teague, C.L., Doggett, J. (2023). Closing the Professional Learning Loop: Designing for Performance Improvement. In: Hokanson, B., Schmidt, M., Exter, M.E., Tawfik, A.A., Earnshaw, Y. (eds) Formative Design in Learning. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41950-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41950-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41949-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41950-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)